MOT question (1 Viewer)

[2dogs]

I'm sure a chip in wiper swept area of windscreen is a failure?

what is the reason behind this? is it obstruction of vision or damage to wipers?

Cheers
2dogs

 

[camocam1]

Think it depends on the size of the chip

 

[2dogs]

about 10mm

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pappajohn]

damage to screen.

In wet weather the chip can distort vision.

And it doesnt do your blades any good either.

There is a maximum size before it fails.

 

[TheBig1]

the rule is there due to the obstruction to vision and structural integrity. get it repaired as most insurances companies will pay without loss of NCD

under 10mm you may get away with it, but is it worth the risk of the screen failing whilst driving?

 

[pappajohn]

see here.

Link Removed

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[TheBig1]

damage to screen.

In wet weather the chip can distort vision.

And it doesnt do your blades any good either.

There is a maximum size before it fails.

its maximum 10mm in the swept area 40mm elsewhere, so if it doesnt spread beyond the gauge used then it may be an advisory. as already said though it needs repairing and may cost nothing

 

[2dogs]

reason I ask is the chip is near the top of the screen , about 3", drivers side and in sweep of wiper however, as the van has the blind rail running across the top of the screen, I can't see the chip from the drivers seat so it is not obstructing my view.
Would it still be considered a failure?

cheers
2dogs

 

[pappajohn]

over 10mm in the shaded area and over 40mm in the other swept area is a fail.

Broken Link Removed

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[2dogs]

like I said John, it is in the swept area but out of my view,
had Autoglass round a few months back but he refused to repair as it was being swept by wiper ??

cheers
2dogs

 

[TheBig1]

if autoglass wont fix it try elsewhere

 

[pappajohn]

i doubt the tester will notice it being where it is.
The repairer had no ligit reason not to repair because it was swept....sounds like he couldnt be arsed....thousands of chips are in the swept area.
Outside the swept area doesnt leave much glass to work on.

Usually the only time they cant/wont repair is if the chip is excessive or its very old.
An old chip will be full of contaminants and the resin may not 'take'
If the chip is very large the resin may distort and sag.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[2dogs]

Thanks both,

will get it repaired soon as MOT is up in April,

Cheers
2dogs

 

[telsdog]

If the damage to the screen is not in the drivers view of the road it does not come into the MOT. Testers have to sit in drivers seat and asses drivers view of road through windscreen.

 

[Geo]

Fail criteria for windscreen damage is quite clear as per the diagram
If the damage is of the sizes quoted, then a fail will be the result, there is no question of "IF" it obstructs the drivers view to be answered
Geo
PS
You will find that repairs that close to the edge of the screen are often refused, another 1" or so in and he'd have had a go, it matter little to the operative if you ave a new screen or not

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pappajohn]

Fail criteria for windscreen damage is quite clear as per the diagram
If the damage is of the sizes quoted, then a fail will be the result, there is no question of "IF" it obstructs the drivers view to be answered
Geo
PS
[HI]You will find that repairs that close to the edge of the screen are often refused, [/HI]another 1" or so in and he'd have had a go, it matter little to the operative if you ave a new screen or not

thanks Geo...didnt realise that. :thumb:

 

[2dogs]

Thanks Geo

 

[telsdog]

Hi Geo
I am also a tester an AE. Just been on refresher course and much time was spent on windscreen inspection. Method of inspection in manual is to sit in drivers seat and asses drivers view of road. Therefore in Vosa opinion if damage is not in drivers view of road it is not testable. Lots of other contentious issues as well !!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[2dogs]

Thanks Telsdog,

I will be getting it repaired but still interested in possible reasons for failure etc etc if you know what I mean.

will take it down my local garage and see what they think.

Cheers
2dogs

 

[Geo]

Hi Geo
I am also a tester an AE. Just been on refresher course and much time was spent on windscreen inspection. Method of inspection in manual is to sit in drivers seat and asses drivers view of road. Therefore in Vosa opinion if damage is not in drivers view of road it is not testable. Lots of other contentious issues as well !!

I shouldn't have to remind you but I will because its an easy trap to fall into
Vosa doesnt have an opinion neither do any of it trainers enforcers or other levels of personel

They have the same as us a "MANUAL" and untill its changed in the manual I will interpret what the manual says including special notices and ignore everything else

What do vosa use the manual for
To nail you to the cross when things go tits up
All the trainers say then is he must have miss heard or miss interpreted what I said

The Manual is your saviour Read it:thumb:
If you disagree you have not been testing long enough
Geo

 

[Reallyretired]

My chips is more than 10mm, has been repaired but still very visible. It is in the swept area of the middle windscreen wiper, and has passed 2 MOTs

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[telsdog]

Hi Geo
Wasn't expecting such a venomous reply. I am new here so please be gentle. Have been testing for 20 years and so have a similar view of Vosa to you. But in this case I tend to agree with them. The manual states that the tester must inspect the drivers view of the road through the swept area of the wipers, ie if it's not in the drivers view of the road you don't inspect it. Obviously you would advise any other damage.

Terry

 

[Geo]

Hi Geo
Wasn't expecting such a venomous reply. I am new here so please be gentle. Have been testing for 20 years and so have a similar view of Vosa to you. But in this case I tend to agree with them. The manual states that the tester must inspect the drivers view of the road through the swept area of the wipers, ie if it's not in the drivers view of the road you don't inspect it. Obviously you would advise any other damage.

Terry

Hi Terry I wont attempt an apology, as anything and everything you interpreted as venomous is your own view not mine, please do quote the offending comments

It was intended as honest advise to what I assumed was a novice tester, you say you have tested for 20 years I also assume you have never been on the wrong side of Vosa

Nowhere did I say I disagreed with that school of thought, I know it makes sense what you and the "New Vosa" are saying BUT and you will notice its a big but

Taken verbatim from the test manual
Method of Inspection and Reason for Rejection

This inspection applies to vehicles in Classes 3, 4 & 7 (including those with opening windscreens). Note: For Class 5 vehicles see Section 6.9 1
.
Method

Whilst sitting in the driver's seat and, referring to the diagram on the previous page, examine the driver's view of the road through the swept area of the windscreen.

Reason for rejection

a. damage not contained within a 10mm diameter circle, or
b. a windscreen sticker or other obstruction encroaching more than 10mm


And that is all it says, it does not as the trainer and now you allude say "If it obstructs the drivers view"
Until it does the trainers can go whistle:thumb:
Or are Vosa now saying the Manual is wrongoh:
I whole heartedly disagree with any form of re interpretation.
If they want to add "Only if it causes an obstruction to the drivers view" then add it
its not rocket science
Ok so your new
I will say sorry but dont get used to it, Ive a reputation to uphold here:Cool:
G

 

[pappajohn]

so Geo, the frame of the window blinds constitutes a reason for failure because it encroaches into the swept area.....the same as a sticker would ?

Yet a security van with bars at the windscreen would pass.

Windscreen protection

Windscreen protection or additional strengthening supports fitted to vehicles which have a security role, eg bullion vehicles. Post Office vehicles etc intended to aid security, are not to be considered a reason for rejection when assessing obstructions to vision.


Double standards.....but then officialdom is packed with double standards

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[telsdog]

Hi Geo
Thanks for apology. I won't tell anyone so your reputation is intact. I think we will have to agree to differ on this one. Vosa interpretation of reason for rejection has not changed. It is their interpretation of method of testing that makes the difference. A tester is examining the drivers view of the road and nothing else. I personally go with this because I don't see the sense in failing something unnecessary no more than I like passing something thats wrong, but thats a whole new debate. Hope to be getting motorhome soon and if I bump into you somewhere will buy you a beer and promise not to talk shop
Regards
Terry

 

[pappajohn]

last time i had a chip on my screen it was accompanied by a part eaten fish and mushy peas.

Bloody drunks ! :Angry: